Following months of speculation, on January 23, 2018 the Trump Administration issued a Proclamation announcing new tariffs on imported solar cells and modules (the “Solar Tariff”) in response to the Section 201 petition brought by Suniva and SolarWorld Americas. The four-year Solar Tariff becomes effective on February 7, 2018 and will start at 30% in Year 1 and ramp down by 5% annually. The Solar Tariff does not apply to the first 2.5 GW of solar cells (not modules) imported each year. Although a tariff of any kind will impact some number of economically marginal projects, it is less clear how significantly the Solar Tariff will impact the U.S. solar market as a whole and whether those impacts will be felt equally across industry segments.

How Did We Get Here?

The Solar Tariff is the outcome of a petition brought by Suniva (later joined by SolarWorld) before the U.S. International Trade Commission (the “ITC”) in April 2017, alleging that Asian companies have used unfair trade practices to drive the price of solar cells and modules to unsustainably low levels and wipe out U.S. competitors. In September, the ITC held that imported solar cells and modules have caused “serious injury” to the domestic manufacturing industry, and the following month the ITC Commissioners issued three different sets of recommendations for remedies, which were then submitted to the President for a decision. Suniva and SolarWorld requested tariffs of 24 cents/watt on solar cells and 32 cents/watt on modules. For reference, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (“NREL”) benchmarks solar modules at 35 cents/watt during Q1 2017 (GTM Research reports 38 cents/watt for the same period), so the requested tariff level would have been over 90% of the cost of the products. None of the ITC Commissioners recommended a remedy at that level, but the range of outcomes was broad (see summary table below).

What Did the President Decide?

Under Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 (the statute under which Suniva brought its petition), the President has authority to accept, reject or modify the ITC Commissioners’ recommendations. Here, the White House appears to have adopted the “middle road” recommendations jointly made by Commissioners Williamson and Johnson:

Is This Going to Kill the Solar Industry?

No, but some projects will feel the impact more than others. It will take some time for the industry to parse the impacts of the Solar Tariff, but let’s first put this into context. NREL reports that solar modules account for 19% (for commercial solar) to 33% (for utility-scale solar) of the installed cost of a solar PV system. So the Solar Tariff represents an increase of 6% to 11% of total installed system cost. In real dollars, the 30% Solar Tariff will immediately add between 10.5 cents/watt and 11.4 cents/watt to module costs (assuming module prices otherwise stay at Q1 2017 levels). By comparison, NREL reports that the installed cost of commercial solar fell 32 cents/watt between Q1 2016 and Q1 2017, and over 40 cents/watt for utility-scale solar during that same period.

Those numbers don’t tell the whole story, however, and that story may be different for utility-scale and commercial-scale solar projects. A big portion of falling costs reflects falling module prices, and regaining that ground will put downward pressure soft costs in order to maintain margins in a low power price environment. That pressure may be most acute for utility-scale projects, where economies of scale have already compressed soft costs to very low levels, and low wholesale power pricing leaves little room to pass through increased project costs to offtakers. By comparison, commercial-scale projects have more room for innovative solutions to decrease soft costs, and because output pricing is generally tied to retail power costs, there may be more flexibility to spread the Solar Tariff among contractors, owners and offtakers.

We also note that the real impact of the Solar Tariff may be blunted by steps already taken by developers, contractors and investors in the second half of 2017. Many developers went on a solar module buying spree in anticipation of a Solar Tariff. Investors, too, have been carefully watching the Section 201 proceeding, and at least some deals, especially those inked after the ITC released its recommendations in October, have included risk allocation terms in the event a tariff was imposed affecting the project.

What Is Next?

It is generally expected that one or more sovereign governments will appeal this matter to the World Trade Organization (“WTO”). Several Asian countries have been closely following the Section 201 proceeding, including China, Malaysia and Korea, each of which exports a substantial portion of the world’s solar cells and modules. However, a WTO appeal could take a long time to resolve, and a pending WTO appeal likely would not stay the implementation of the Solar Tariff.

Eric advises energy investors, project developers, and entrepreneurs on a wide variety of transactions, including project development, project financing, mergers and acquisitions, and early-stage funding. His project experience is broad and includes natural gas, solar, wind, hydropower, biogas, and cogeneration projects across the United States. Eric’s technology practice includes representing cutting-edge energy generation, energy storage and water clients, and he has particular experience helping companies organize efficiently for commercial deployment. He has also...

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com intended to be a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional. NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us.

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558 Telephone (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.